Ataru *~

Hmm. Well, in a recent game I charged a Chaffee up into a group of Tigers from around a forest... it was killed very quickly by fire from one of them, but then one of the Tigers brewed up, to my confusion. Replaying the portion of the turn a couple times, I found that a far-off Panther had fired at my Chaffee and ended up hitting and taking out a Tiger between it and the Chaffee! I checked carefully; only the Panther and a Tiger fired; my Chaffee was blasted by a Tiger after bouncing one shot off another Tiger's front armor, and the only other things I had were other out of LOS Chaffees on the other side of the forest. (was just a weird test game) I tracked the Panther shot smack into the Tiger. Food for thought. (possibly units can fire through friendly units, but if the shot *lands* on a friendly it is effective.) [This message has been edited by Ataru *~ (edited 12-12-2000).]

Hmm, how much of a beating did you lay down on that bridge? I was unable to destroy tall stone bridges over land or water with the a 3 14 inch spotter bombardment. Either it takes more than I was able to deliver, or there was a bug of some specific sort happening in my test game... Ataru (hehe, and is it just me or does that destroyed bridge look kinda funny. I think full 3d bridges like the houses would be a nice CM 2 feature) [This message has been edited by Ataru *~ (edited 09-10-2000).]

Only non-locked units that are in starting placement zones for their side, and then only within those zones of the same color. Ataru

Craters appearing on steep terrain, particularly near places where it may even out, are glitchy. (extending over the edge of a cliff, or from the mountain side out into space, for example) Tall bridges over land or water are indestructable. Wooden bridges seem to only show the destroyed wooden bridge graphic on the turn they are destroyed; they switch to the destroyed short stone bridge graphic on later turns. Sometimes abandoned tanks don't immediately go down with bridges when the bridge they're on are destroyed; they just hover in mid-air for a turn. Just some things I noticed while playing around with bridges in the editor; not too important for the most part but fixes when BTS can get around to it would be nice. Ataru

The game's physics shouldn't change depending on what happened or didn't happen; they should be based entirely on what *could* have happened. And they are... so why make an exception here? That is, IF the penetration values are actually wrong. Better than pretending the game's pillboxes are monstrous coastal bunkers. This isn't an engine wrecking issue; if something is wrong it could probably be changed with a few keystrokes, and thus there's no harm in mentioning it. Ataru

Remember, the craters of the 14 inch shells in CM are about 4 times the size of the pillboxes; again, they're no coastal bunkers. BTW, still looking for an explanation on the Flamethrowers. Ataru

Remember guys, the very fact that your men fire in bursts is an abstraction. We all know a squad equipped with assorted weapons such as rifles, SMGs, LMG... would not all fire, wait a couple seconds, all fire, etc. These bursts must represent the fire brought to bear during the periods of no fire, as well as that which is obvious. It is no stretch to apply the same logic to sharpshooters, although in their case the capability to model individual shots *should* exist. (but is definitely not modeled) Ataru

Here's one possibility. In set-up, you could have split an engineer squad and placed the 2 half-squads near each other. When the game starts, because the half-squads are within their recombine range they become a single normal squad, in the foxhole of the original squad you split- *however* THE SECOND HALF-SQUAD'S FOXHOLE REMAINS!! *the lights go out and you hear a hideous shriek behind you* Or I could be totally off. Ataru

Kwazydog? Well, whoever it was let me say those mods are BEAUTIFUL; man, the wheels on that Tiger and Jagdtiger are about as 3-d looking as they could possibly be without modeling them invidually, and the pixellation throughout the new bmps is nonexistant. I also love the Jagdtiger's camo scheme... but the main point of this post is that guys, these 2 vehicles look GOOD; if the rest of the game's graphics were equally well-done, (I'm not asking for it, noone bite me please) the graphics actually *would* be up to par with the latest in FPS or RTS. I'm sure everyone will be shocked by what BTS will be capable of turning CM into in the 2nd or 3rd installment with tomorrow's machines to work with. (personal note to the creator of the mods for the Tiger and Jagdtiger, you rule! ) *edit* Not meant to sleight any of the other people who have worked hard to improve CMBO thru mods; these 2 AFVs in particular just struck me. They're certainly not the only mods it's my pleasure to have on my machine. Ataru [This message has been edited by Ataru *~ (edited 09-04-2000).]

It's real; I noticed it quite some time ago actually, but was firmly locked in lurking status at the time. Ataru

Alrighty. So here's the situation... we have a general agreement that normal indirect fire arty, even of the largest calibers, should be incapable of defeating CM's pillboxes, but still some uncertainty on the 14 inchers due to their nature as direct fire battleship guns. We have M Hofbauer who wants me to hold up my side of the argument. *grins* We have myself, who still takes issue with flamethrower prices, and StuG prices to some degree. (heck, let's add Tiger prices to the list; who wants an early version when you can get the late, much less susceptible to rockets and large arty for 1 point more! ) On the flamers, their ranges are equal, tho the Allied flamers certainly have range advantages on their flamer vehicles. (albeit at increased cost) Even discounting the balance issues however, someone please tell me how realistic it is that the German flamethrower team can have 50% more ammo AND a better movement class than the Allied flamers? I guess the German equipment *could* be enough superior in weight and bulkyness to hold more napalm at a weight that would warrant the same movement class as the Allied version... but enough to carry that and to warrant *better* movement? (ah, just reviewed the thread and saw that German flamers have less range... hehe, guess I was wrong on that. I wouldn't say it makes *enough* of a difference to equalize the prices however; not by a long shot. What are flamers for? Mainly, burning buildings; sometimes pillboxes if you can get behind. For both of these purposes, medium speed is significantly superior to slow speed with somewhat longer range. Range is more important in an ambush, but infantry flamethrowers are never bought for this purpose, tho they are used in this manner at times in defensive scenarios in which you are given them... however, that is irrelevant as price only matters in QBs. Why they aren't bought for ambush is pretty obvious; inferior speed and performance in armor/vehicle-busting than rocket launchers of any sort, at a much higher price, and horrible anti-infantry performance. Plus, as infantry flamethrowers that actually are of use pretty much always run out of ammo, the extra ammo of the german variety is a big deal, while not as important as the speed issue. The extra ammo at a faster speed also remains nebulous in its realism to me; an explanation would be nice. ) Hehe, now, I actually think ALL flamethrowers are overpriced in relation to non-flamethrower units, but that is merely an opinion. Ataru [This message has been edited by Ataru *~ (edited 09-04-2000).]

That sniper rifle smiley along with most of the cooler weapon smilies is inspired by Unreal Tournament. Nice work Gunslinger! Can't wait. Ataru

Bump. Hey, there are some issues yet to be laid to rest that remain in this thread! Me want cheaper Allied Flamethrowers! (or more expensive German ones I guess, tho I'd rather not see Flamethrowers get *even more* expensive) *grins* Ataru

Ignoring a problem with the certain (I'd say so) knowledge that said problem will quickly be dealt with is not endorsement. I'd say the sooner this mess is out of sight and out of mind, the better. He's going to be banned when BTS gets back... you can't speed this by posting 10 or a hundred times to express your outrage. And I truly doubt anything that is said will cause him to be repentant... but hey, if you honestly think you can change a beings's morals with messages on a forum, go ahead. Ataru [This message has been edited by Ataru *~ (edited 09-03-2000).]

I agree with the underlying feeling of your post WBW, but don't demonize Mikeydz by lumping him in with the people who ignored the atrocities of WWII. We all know JP is going to be banned, and why... need more be said? Is telling him he's a bad, bad man going to change his outlook, or would we forgive if he said he were sorry and wouldn't ever do anything like he's done again? (as if we could believe it) If I know his type, a verbal reprimand means precisely zilch... and so it may be better to just get on to other topics and let the axe fall when the lords of the manor return. Ataru